Harvey Weinstein has consistently denied any nonconsensual sex acts ever since the
shocking allegations of sexual misconduct surfaced against him in October 2017.
At worst, the disgraced mogul has admitted to using his position of power in Hollywood
to elicit sexual favors. His attorney Benjamin Brafman has stated,
"Mr. Weinstein did not invent the casting couch in Hollywood."
On Aug. 14 - in a first-of-its-kind decision - U.S. District Court Judge Robert Sweet
ruled that Weinstein must face a federal claim of sex trafficking in a lawsuit brought
by Kadian Noble. Noble accuses Weinstein of unwanted sexual conduct
after promising the aspiring actress work. In response, Weinstein is asking Sweet
for an immediate appeal over the issue of what qualifies as a "commercial sex act"
under the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015. Weinstein hopes he'll be
given permission for the appeal to limit the potential fallout from Sweet's opinion.
That prompted the producer's lawyers to express their expectation that some of
the other women who are currently suing Weinstein may seek to add a
sex trafficking claim based on Noble's success. Under the relevant trafficking statute,
a commercial sex act must be shown. But what exactly does that mean?
The Hollywood Reporter's Eriq Gardner asks. If a commercial sex act is defined
as something of value in exchange for sex — a quid pro quo —
does the possibility of a film role represent value?
In his decision, Sweet acknowledged that he was navigating "unchartered waters"
on this issue and even paused a moment to consider Weinstein's hypothetical
about an individual who treats a person to a free dinner, promises future gifts, and then
attempts to engage in activity which he construes as consensual sexual activity.
Would that be classified as sex trafficking?
According to Sweet, "Notably absent from this hypothetical are the necessary elements
of force, fraud, and commerce, all of which have been established here."
Weinstein and his attorneys, do not agree.
"[T]here must be an economic component to a violation of the Trafficking Statute,"
write his lawyers. "To hold otherwise is to interpret the Trafficking Statute out of
existence because it would be unconstitutional………..Without a true economic
component required, every alleged forcible sexual assault in which the victim
complies with the assault in order to preserve her safety, for example,
would give rise to a claim covered by the Trafficking Statute."
As a result, Gardner poses another question: Will sex trafficking become a much
bigger deal in courts moving forward — or will sex trafficking be confined
to acts like forced prostitution and child pornography?
Weinstein's lawyers told the judge this is a first impression case where there is a
reasonable difference of opinion. They argue that it presents an important
question that may result in a proliferation of cases.
To read Eriq Gardner's full article on Harvey Weinstein appealing the Court
to define a "commercial sex act" head to THR.com.
For The Hollywood Reporter News, I'm Lyndsey Rodrigues.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét